EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic: Sugar Daddy vs R:Ex
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic: Sugar Daddy vs R:Ex

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Do I go fat or do I go FAT?

Weighing up which one of these skis to get this season.

Day to day ski is the SX11 (170) so want something for when it is puking down in UT.

I have searched the forums and read all that has been said before and want to know if there is any fresh info out there.

Anyone got something to say about these two skis?

[img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
post #2 of 28
Hey, take a look at the Telemark-Pyrenees website - they offer a nice mounting of the Fritschi Freeride AT binding on the Sugardaddy. Looks like a nice set up for UT.
http://www.telemark-pyrenees.com/e_index.htm

They write:

"Fancy mounting these bindings on Atomic Sugar Daddies? Please see Custom Riser Plates!! [...] AT bindings cannot be mounted directly on some freeride skis such as Atomic's Sugar Daddies. We can supply custom made 10 mm nylon riser platforms that enable these skis to work with Diamir Freeride and Titanal III bindings.
We cut these from 10 mm tough nylon sheets, each platform is handmade and drilled according to the model and size of the ski and binding and the length of your ski boot..
These risers use the original ski holes as used by the manufacturer's riser plate and require no other drilling of the ski. This system allows you to switch between the AT and alpine bindings if required.
So, mount up those wide freeride skis and make 'em real AT monsters ready for the deepest and most inaccessible powder!!!"
post #3 of 28
I also ski the 180cm SX11 alot and have an 180cm R11 & 173cm Sugar Daddy.

Although much has been written about the SX as being very demanding and one dimensional, I found it damn versatile and even very good in the bumps and maybe up to 7-8" of new on top of a groomed base and chopped up Pow. I have not skied the R:EX because the quiver I have pretty much covers the bases(also ski an SL11 in a 157cm and have a new pair of 164cm, I have not skied yet)

I have heard the R:EX is a fabulous ski and very good for it's size on hardpack. The Sugar Daddy is damn beefy, very solid platform. Nothing on the hill can shake 'em up. I even skied on the most windblown frozen solid ice fingers last season at Mt. Bachelor in Oregon and they were incredible. Hard pack is a little more tenuous on them, but once you tune into the ski they even work pretty well there.

The Sugar Daddy is billed as the ski you want when you have a foot or more of new. They eat chopped up powder and crud effortlessly. I think the R:EX maybe more versatile, if you were going from packed to powder, during the day, it probably works better. If you are looking for just a deeper snow board, go Sugars all the way!

Hope this helps!

Over & out!

Atomicman, skier formerly known as Volklman

[ November 08, 2003, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Atomicman ]
post #4 of 28
Thread Starter 
Thinking that the R:Ex may be the way to go based on that just so that I have a bit more versatility.
post #5 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by Seth:
Do I go fat or do I go FAT?
Sure, the Big Daddy is FAT.
post #6 of 28
Thread Starter 
str8line how do you find the R:Ex in the deeper stuff?
post #7 of 28
As an Atomic devotee, with a lot of experience on the REX(198,191,184,and 177) and to a lesser extent with the Sugar Daddy(173,183) here are my observations. I am 5'10" 160lbs. To me longitudinal(tip to tail)flex is very important in a ski and especially so in the REX. I first skied it as a prototype four years ago in the 198 which was trhe only size available. Loved it but not in tight places.Next downsized to a 191 and then to a 184. Presently skiing a 177 because most of the 184's seemed too planky and stiff. For whatever reason I never seemed to connect with the 184. I find the REX to be an excellent western all mountain choice. Not too much shape(23m), which makes it very predictable in moguls,excellent in crud and crust and chopped powder and reasonable in the untracked deep.The natural turn shape and performance of the REX on corduroy is otherworldly. If you like a lot of flotation in the deep the Sugar Daddy is the ticket. Strong and fast in the offpiste is the hallmark of the Sugar. Don't expect the versatility of the REX though. I prefer the 183 over the 173. The 173 just feels too short and pivoty for my style though moving the binder back of center helps to make for more stabiliy at speed. Sorry about the length of this post.
post #8 of 28
I was on the R:EX for a season and they were NOT enough when the big storms came in. You said puking in UT. Get the Sugars. You have some groomer skis. EX is versatile, but not that great in over 8" of fresh, especially the dry stuff over there.
post #9 of 28
I'm in pretty complete agreement with the previous posters in this thread (partic. A-man, Straightline, and DonnyB.), but wanted to add one thought that's pretty obvious, but lots of people seem to forget it:

Any half-way decent skier can ski most snow conditions on any pair of boards. You can ski deep powder or crud on 207 Renntigers, 188 p40's or 163 shorty slaloms. It may not feel as good as if you were on an optimal set of boards, but it can be done, and its not even all that hard. As you get closer to the optimal type of skis, it feels better and it gets easier, but you don't have to agonize over selecting THE optimal pair for yourself.

That said, as applied to this thread, an 83 mm Rex will feel quite a bit better in deep snow than Seth's SX11, especially if you are on the lighter side. A 90+ ski will feel still better yet, and will allow him to do go both faster (with stability) and slower (without sinking in and bogging down), especially if you are heavier than average.

IMHO, Seth's real decision comes down to whether he wants to spend the more frequently occurring 4 - 6 inch days on skis (90+ models) that might be a bit overkill for the situation but will still work fine, or on mid-80mm skis that are "perfect" for this situation, but which will leave a performance gap on the really deep days that occur less frequently (ie, Descender's spot-on comment).

I didn't notice any mention of Seth's weight, but my recommendation to him (or anyone else) would be that if he is over 185-190 lbs, go with 90+ mm skis as his second pair. Much under 160, go with the Rex's, and in the middle, make a decision based on the pros and cons other posters have given.

My personal fat ski situation is this - For the past 4 or 5 years I've been on a 190 Explosiv (95mm), and a 184 10ex (83mm) for the past 2 seasons. If I only feel like taking two pairs with me, and deep snow is a serious possibility, I take a pr of groomer skis and the Explosivs. If I know its going to be a bit soft but not deep, the Explosivs stay home and I ski the 10ex's. If I have no idea what the snow is going to be like, I prefer to err on the side of FATness.

My opinion is that getting caught having to ski 24 inches of cut-up, set-up crud on 80 mm skis is worse than "getting caught" skiing 4" of new on 95 mm powder boards. The latter make the 4" feel like velvet. YMMV.

Tom / PM
post #10 of 28
REX or Sugar Daddys = bot sweet skis.

I'm skiing R11s in 180 on hard pack / groomers pretty much front side stuff. The REX in a 184 for ALL Mtn, will ski it ALL ( crud, groomer and pow up to 4" then the Sugar Daddys (183s) come into the picture for skiing the untracked 6" to bottomless. If you can't afford both REX and SD and arn't in the "deep" much then go for the REXs. Keep in mind, that they are a stiffer board and demand a strong skier! Watch your sizing!

Good luck!

[img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
post #11 of 28
Seth,

In an effort to accurately answer your question re: REX vs. Sugar Daddy I never broached the subject of the Atomic Stomp. The Stomp has become my ski of choice for most soft snow conditions. Sidecut radius is identical(23m) to the REX but the ski is wider tip to tail with an 88mm waist. Twin tipped and soft in the extremities but fairly beefy underfoot giving good grip on firm snow, great soft bump performance, and a more forgiving nature than the REX, while still yielding wonderful turns in most off piste conditions. There has been been some criticism re: the centered mount position being too far forward for deep powder but this is easily addressed by sliding the Atomic binding one or two clicks to the rear. The Stomp is basically a ripoff of the Pocket Rocket, but with beta construction it holds better on firm snow and tracks better in soft snow as well as being able to take incredible rock hits without blowing up. I love my Stomps but I still use my 177 REX's with freerides for A/T.
post #12 of 28
Seth

I've been on the R:Ex with Fritschi Freerides since last season in Europe. I haven't skied the Sugar Daddy, but for my money it's TOO fat. I think you get to a point where you have so much flotation in the powder that it actually reduces the fun you have. Purely personal opinion, of course, but I think you could put the SD's on a donkey and they'll still float in the powder. What's the point?
post #13 of 28
Seth:

Physics and Donny are "dead on". I don't need to waste your time or space saying the same thing.

Please post what you decide on!

Enjoy!
post #14 of 28
I think PhysicsMan makes an important point - it does not matter too much. Either will be just fine even if not optimal in all conditions.

I find the idea that REX's are not very good in snow deeper than 4" very funny. Surely any half competent skier can be comfortable on anything in 6-8" of powder. Comfortable is not the word really - perhaps ecstatic. I wouldn't feel any need for anything wider than R9s in that depth (and I'm sure that you guys are way better than me). 18-24" would be a different story.
post #15 of 28
Why are you limited to Atomics? BTW, I ski the R:EX in a 184 and love it. If I lived in UT, I would ditch the SX:11 and get an R:EX and some Seth Pistols, Seth.
post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by Bandit Man:
Why are you limited to Atomics? BTW, I ski the R:EX in a 184 and love it. If I lived in UT, I would ditch the SX:11 and get an R:EX and some Seth Pistols, Seth.
In my opinion, the Seth Pistol may be the worse ski I have ever skied on!
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by Atomicman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bandit Man:
Why are you limited to Atomics? BTW, I ski the R:EX in a 184 and love it. If I lived in UT, I would ditch the SX:11 and get an R:EX and some Seth Pistols, Seth.
In my opinion, the Seth Pistol may be the worse ski I have ever skied on!</font>[/quote]So Opinionated!

I actually prefer my Pistols to my R:EX's, which I am sure pleases you. I would say that the Seth Pistols are nearly the ugliest ski I have ever skied on. My comment was meant to be a bit humurous ("Seth" handle & Seth pistol), but was explicitly implying that there are other choices that are wider than a R:EX but not as wide as a Sugar Daddy. May 90-mm waisted skis come to mind...PR's, Pistols, B3's, Inspired, and on and on. "Seth" has lots of great Utah capable choices.

(Tangent)

My complaint about Atomics is that there many of their great skis require use of their bindings. Other manufacturers made the choice to allow choice for their sought after sticks...for instance, the Volkl G4/Explosiv/Gotama do not have the Marker motion system, yet Sugars/Big Daddy's/Stomps do require the Atomic binding. Interesting...

I am just glad that the R:EX's do not require the Atomic bindings because they are a nice all-mtn./high-intensity skiing stick...although the Pistols are better (for me) in deeper snow.

[ November 11, 2003, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Bandit Man ]
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by Seth:
Thanks for all the advice thus far.

I am 5'11 and 175.

I would love to have both skis but practicality comes into making the decision.

From all the advice I think will go for the R:Ex in a 177.

They will still float better than my SX11's and will def be more versatile than the SD's.
Go at least 184. No go on 177. Wider would be better.
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by Bandit Man:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Atomicman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bandit Man:
[qb]Why are you limited to Atomics? BTW, I ski the R:EX in a 184 and love it. If I lived in UT, I would ditch the SX:11 and get an R:EX and some Seth Pistols, Seth.
In my opinion, the Seth Pistol may be the worse ski I have ever skied on!</font>
So Opinionated!

I said it maybe maybe the worst ski I have ever skied on! I thought that was pretty open minded on my part. I didn't say unequivocally it was a piece of sh__, but probably should have. I traded my buddy my Sugar Daddy's for a run on his Seth Pistols last year. We skied powder, chopped up powder and snow that was starting to get a little heavy & chopped up. The Seth Pistol is way too soft. Got knocked around and quite honestly felt like it was going to fold in half it was so soft. The Sugar Daddy skied circles around it in everyway. I asked my self at the time, Why would anyone ski on this thing.? But I have to be honest, I've never skied on a K2 I liked.

Also, I have no problem with Atomic bindings. So, I don't care if that is the only binding you can use on their ski. I don't have a need to excercise my "freedom" in choosing a binding. I think most bindings work just fine!

Anyway, you are entitled to ski on an overly soft ugly ski, all you want. It is probably some new school thing us "OLD GUYS" don't get!

Over & out!

A-man

Ski with the Wind MF!
post #20 of 28
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the advice thus far.

I am 5'11 and 175.

I would love to have both skis but practicality comes into making the decision.

From all the advice I think will go for the R:Ex in a 177.

They will still float better than my SX11's and will def be more versatile than the SD's.
post #21 of 28
[Hijack]

I ski in Mammoth and Tahoe. You likely ski at Crystal, Whistler (Oh, you are lucky), Baker, etc. The snow is very much the same. The SG's work for you, while the Pistols are my "weapon" of choice."
Obviously, we are both passionate about our choice of skis and why we like them. I often think that K2 did themselves a dis-service by not making the Pistol as pleasing to the eye as the Pocket Rocket, because it rides similarly (which some hate) but has a much wider performance envelope. The things you hate about the Pistols are oddly the things I love. It makes any kind of snow feel supple and smooth. I laugh becasue I can work my buddies on their 10:EX's in Sierra Crud/Chowder when I am on my "way too soft" Pisotls. Must be a new school thing...

BTW...I hear rumors that Atomic is making the Big and Sugar Daddy's softer next season. If so, I wonder why??

Last, I'm not looking to pick afight but rather offer an alternate perspective. In the end it may just be a matter of taste, but the skier is the one that must back it up with skills.

[Steps off soap box]
post #22 of 28
I wish I could comment on Sugardaddys vs R:ex's but only have the R:Ex's on a few runs in demo days last year.

Seth - I had to make the same decision that you made. Now these guys have me second-guessing getting the R:EXs! These are the skis I considered:

- Rossi Bandit XXX 180
- Dynastar Inspired by Jeremy Nobis 177
- Atomic R:ex 177

Basically I picked the Atomic because it was a killer deal at the Whistler turkey sale.

I wanted something that was decent in powder but also use in chopped up crud. I already had the SX11s for hardpack days when I want to go fast. Also unlike some of the guys here (who seem to be exceptional skiers - no sarcasm intended) I find the SX 11 to be a handful on crud days or in the bumps. But I do think that has something to do with my need to improve rather than the ski. So I am not going to use my SX11s as an all-around ski.

I tried the Bandit XXX but I thought it was a pretty slow turning ski - kinda felt like moving a big ocean liner around.

I actually like the Dynastar Inspired's the best (89mm waist); it was incredibly stable through the crud but still pretty good turning on hardpack.

The Atomic R:Ex was pretty good too; it was an exceptional crud-buster but not as good on the hardpack as the Dynaster.

Still I couldn't find a Dynastar Inspired on sale so went with Atomic - which was a close second choice anyway!

I do a fair amount of backcountry on teles where I'm on 74mm waist tele skis and am pretty happy on those. I figured that going to the Atomic R:ex at an 83 waist was going to be a pretty decent compromise for the kind of conditions I often see at my home mountain W/B - where powder gets skied out often and one has to deal with chopped up snow. Also spring skiing snow is like cement and the Atomic was great in those conditions; very stable and not easy to deflect. I figure its because the tips are fairly stiff.

If you're in Utah, you're going to see probably more bottomless pow days in the front country then me so maybe you should go look at some Sugar Daddy's even though you say you want R:EXs for versatility. Just some more food for thought
post #23 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by descender:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seth:
Thanks for all the advice thus far.

I am 5'11 and 175.

I would love to have both skis but practicality comes into making the decision.

From all the advice I think will go for the R:Ex in a 177.

They will still float better than my SX11's and will def be more versatile than the SD's.
Go at least 184. No go on 177. Wider would be better.</font>[/quote]Why go for the 184? Surely the 177 would be enough ski?
post #24 of 28
I weigh in at 175 lbs and am 5'8". I originally bought the 10:EX in a 191, but thought that it was just too long. I sold those and picked up a R:EX in the 184 and love it. It still goes big, but is agile for tight space, as well. Since you are currently on a 170, the 177 should be fine.

My prediction is that the 177 EX will become your favored ski, even for the groomed. Just be prepared to develop a taste for something even fatter. I like the EX in crud, which is what I get in the Sierras most of the time, but for deeper and light I would want something wider. If you haven't ridden a 90+ fatty, then you have no idea what you are missing. [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]

[ November 12, 2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Bandit Man ]
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by Seth:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by descender:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seth:
Thanks for all the advice thus far.

I am 5'11 and 175.

I would love to have both skis but practicality comes into making the decision.

From all the advice I think will go for the R:Ex in a 177.

They will still float better than my SX11's and will def be more versatile than the SD's.
Go at least 184. No go on 177. Wider would be better.</font>[/quote]Why go for the 184? Surely the 177 would be enough ski?</font>[/quote]I was on the 177 last year and I ditched them. Sometimes I felt like I didn't have enough tail behind me. I am 5'11 170. It works, but I think 184 would be better. 184 will not be too long. I think you would be happy on a 184. But if this is your off piste pow stick I would say that you should get something 90mm+ around 185-190.
post #26 of 28
My quiver last year consisted of SX:11 in 180 as well as Sugar Daddys in 183 I thought that it was perfect. I have been on the R:EX and thought it was also a great ski and if I had to buy only one pair I would have gotten them. As you probably know the SX:11 rocks on the hard pack. It is a good crud buster and not to bad as an all mountain ski as long as you ski it and it does not ski you. It takes a little strength but the rewards are great. I thought the Sugars were an amazing ski. I came off a XXX to the Sugars and you can not even compare the two. The sugars were extreamly stable at speed and could plow though anything where I felt the R:EX's got deflected a bit in heavy crud at speed. I rode the sugars every day that was the least bit soft which last year was not often enough. In the deep stuff they floated like no other. It was such a great feeling. Even the heavy pow that we get in the PNW was no trouble and I felt like I was cheating as they were so easy to ride. Tight tree were no problem and they worked very well as resort ski. I could even carve them nicely on the groomers as long as I had a little speed. If you like to mainly ski off peast I would highly reccomend the sugars over the EX's since you can fall back on your SX:11's on hard days. The float they give is well work the lack of versitility. I am a little bigger than you at 6' and 200 lbs but you should be able to handle them fine since I thought that they were to short for me and I am stepping up to some 195 AK Swallowtails this year. If you are interested I am selling mine with 6-14 bindings. Hope this helps a little.
post #27 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Bandit Man:
My prediction is that the 177 EX will become your favored ski, even for the groomed. [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]
As good as they could be on the groomers I doubt I would ever pick the R:Ex over the SX11 for that purpose.
post #28 of 28
Seth, I have keep out of this but now I'll jump in.
I'm 5'11" 195lbs. I have 10EX/REX in 177cm, as my deep snow ski. Notice I ski mostly in the East. Have skied them at Whistler/Blackcomb, for 6 day's one day in deep snow.

Your first post talked about "puking snow". So if you want a DEEP snow ski go with the Sugar Daddy, "go big or stay home".

If you want to compromise go with the REX in 184cm it will support "you" in Deep snow.

I would sell the SX and get R11's as your everyday day. If you want to stay with Atomic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic: Sugar Daddy vs R:Ex